Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
4/1/2020 6:58:51 AM
Posted: 1/10/2005 8:39:13 AM EDT
do we have to abide by the Geneva Convention even though terrorists didnt sign it and neither did iraq i think
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:39:59 AM EDT
yes
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
yes



Correct.

Of course, terrorists don't fall under the Geneva Convention, so you can torture them on pay-per-view for all I care.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:25 AM EDT
Yes. However, it does not apply to any of the terrorist groups we are currently destroying. They are not a uniformed fighting force. Nor are they from an established State. They target civilians. Any one of these three disqualifies them from Geneva protections for POW's.

No matter what the Left bleats about.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 8:42:37 AM EDT by GTOJudge885]
well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:43:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Yes. However, it does not apply to any of the terrorist groups we are currently destroying. They are not a uniformed fighting force. Nor are they from an established State. They target civilians. Any one of these three disqualifies them from Geneva protections for POW's.

No matter what the Left bleats about.


makes me feel better then, next one I find in my backyard i going in the basement.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:53:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GTOJudge885:
well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection



Because they ARE leftists and things like FACTS, LOGIC, and TRUTH have no place in their world.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 8:57:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 8:57:50 AM EDT by AmericanPatriot1776]
Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:00:11 AM EDT
thats what i figured.... thanks fellas
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:15:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot1776:
Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.



Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:18:09 AM EDT
We ARE holding ourselves to a higher standard. Notice we didn't cut off any body parts from those detained at Guantanamo and even those Abu Garhaib pussies made it out without so much as a buise.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:39:31 AM EDT
It seems that I learned a while back that we are not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but we abide by it.

Anyone verify that?
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:40:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 9:41:02 AM EDT by Zaphod]

Originally Posted By GTOJudge885:
well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection



Because they are generally clueless....
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:41:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
It seems that I learned a while back that we are not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but we abide by it.

Anyone verify that?



AKAIK, we ARE signatories to the Convention. Almost certain of it, in fact.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:51:51 AM EDT
Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit using the 50 against personnel?  I believe I was taught that back in the day.  Though, we were also told that we could shoot at the "equipment" they were wearing.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 9:57:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit using the 50 against personnel?  I believe I was taught that back in the day.  Though, we were also told that we could shoot at the "equipment" they were wearing.




Old wive's gunny's tale.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:04:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By plarkinjr:

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot1776:
Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.



Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).



Sorry but what higher standard…

The “higher standard” that should be upheld is ANYONE intentionally targeting civilians that is caught should be questioned and then summarily executed.

AND

The Geneva Conventions was NEVER INTENDED to apply to terrorist. There were terrorist when the Geneva Conventions were originally adopted and terrorist WERE NOT considered worthy of protection.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 6:39:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By plarkinjr:
Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).



Sorry but what higher standard…

The “higher standard” that should be upheld is ANYONE intentionally targeting civilians that is caught should be questioned and then summarily executed.

AND

The Geneva Conventions was NEVER INTENDED to apply to terrorist. There were terrorist when the Geneva Conventions were originally adopted and terrorist WERE NOT considered worthy of protection.



No disagreement there!  Summarily Executed?  I have no problem with that... hanging, firing squad or lethal injection OK.... no beheading with a bowie knife, no tying them up laying on the ground and running a tank over them, or anything of the sort.

Agreed also that terrorist do not get geneva convention protections... I consider terrorists to be about the same as Barbary Coast pirates and brigands.
Top Top